Can you think of an example where the crime will have no bearing on the performance of the emloyee and yet the employer excludes them anyway?

Nope!

ANY crime has a bearing on the persons potential performance. They've already shown that they are willing to commit a crime. Stealing form their place of employment would also be a crime... something they've shown they are willing to do...

Yes, I see the leap I've made, but from the point of view of an employer, it's a valid leap.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

ANY crime has a bearing on the persons potential performance. They've already shown that they are willing to commit a crime. Stealing form their place of employment would also be a crime... something they've shown they are willing to do...

Yes, I see the leap I've made, but from the point of view of an employer, it's a valid leap.

Do you know what percentage of felons are thieves or embezzlers? What about the pot smokers? What about the forty year-old man who spray painted a wall when he was 20?

I've got the poverty causes crime hypothesis and you've got the 'give more money to rich people and they will raise salaries and hire more workers' hypothesis. Only mine has never been proved to be a failure.

I've got the poverty causes crime hypothesis and you've got the 'give more money to rich people and they will raise salaries and hire more workers' hypothesis. Only mine has never been proved to be a failure.

And for you it's "taking less money from the rich is akin to giving money to them". Unless you haven't been paying attention the "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is on the ropes.

401 of the lowest wage Americans earning say $1 an hour, working 8 hour days for 365 days a year, would have to work for 1,170,020 years each, to earn as much as the 400 have saved up. I hope they've got good health insurance!

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

If corporations paid there taxes instead of having off shore havens etc etc the say extra $100 billion a year in tax revenues adds up. Not only does it reduce the interest payment on the debt it gets it down by over a trillion dollars over ten years.

Save say $100 billion a year from health spending, $500 billion plus from military spending and $ 100 billion for prison spending and that's another 7 trillion off the debt.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

If corporations paid there taxes instead of having off shore havens etc etc the say extra $100 billion a year in tax revenues adds up. Not only does it reduce the interest payment on the debt it gets it down by over a trillion dollars over ten years.

Save say $100 billion a year from health spending, $500 billion plus from military spending and $ 100 billion for prison spending and that's another 7 trillion off the debt.

The US federal government is expected to run a deficit of about $1.6 TRILLION in 2011. If you took every single dime of profit from every corporation in the Fortune 500, you would get only about $300 BILLION. It's clear that spending is the problem.

It doesn't matter how much is taken in in the form of taxes, or who it's taken from. The government feels obligated to spend every penny they bring in and then some.

We could be taxed at 100%, the federal government could bring in 10 trillion in tax revenue per year (made up number), and they would then spend at LEAST 10 trillion +1 dollars. Guaranteed.

Until they are forced (by constitutional mandate) to have a balanced budget, I don't see this pattern changing. The problem is, the very people who like spending all that money (and the power it garners them) are the ones who have to introduce a balanced budget amendment... so they've no motivation to do it.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

The US federal government is expected to run a deficit of about $1.6 TRILLION in 2011. If you took every single dime of profit from every corporation in the Fortune 500, you would get only about $300 BILLION. It's clear that spending is the problem.

Go for annihilation my assumptions and false facts. Have fun with that.

Your link refers to ALL corporate profits (which it lists at about $1.2 TRILLION). I referred only to the Fortune 500. The budget deficit is correct...$1.6 TRILLION.

So...if you not just raised taxes or "made corporations pay their taxes"...but took every single dime of corporate profits in the US...you would get closer to balancing the budget. In theory you would reduce the deficit to $400 BILLION ($1.6T - $1.2T).

Of course this kind of action would destroy the economy...but hey, in theory, the budget would be balanced. This is only theory of course. When confronted with the confiscation of every dime of their profits, how many of those corporations would chose to stay in business?

Well I'm guessing, like many big government supporters, he probably does think that. But I suspect he's wrapped up in a mis-reading of my post in which I mentioned only the Fortune 500 profits, while he posted a link to total corporate profits. My argument still stands of course...but this will not be admitted by any of our "soak the rich" and "tax the corporation" friends.

Spending is a huge problem, there's no doubt government spending needs to be slashed. But we should also collect the tax money and scrap the big loopholes. If corporations were to pay the actual 35%, if the rich were to actually pay more than 17% then we could pay to regenerate society and cut the deficit. Despite what MJ is pushing, we would make a huge difference to our debt in a short period of time if we did.

But your point is fair, government tends to be spend whatever it can get, that's why repubs and dems have to look closely at cuts to the military budget and realize you can slash it and still be a "real" American.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Spending is a huge problem, there's no doubt government spending needs to be slashed. But we should also collect the tax money and scrap the big loopholes. If corporations were to pay the actual 35%, if the rich were to actually pay more than 17% then we could pay to regenerate society and cut the deficit. Despite what MJ is pushing, we would make a huge difference to our debt in a short period of time if we did.

No it wouldn't. If you actually eliminated the loop holes and, effectively, raised corporate profit tax rates...there will be less profit to tax*. Which will lead to less (not more) tax revenue. I can almost guarantee this.

If you understand that the more you tax something, the less of it you'll get and the more you subsidize something, the more of it you'll get, the things you see happening will make more sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

But your point is fair, government tends to be spend whatever it can get, that's why repubs and dems have to look closely at cuts to the military budget and realize you can slash it and still be a "real" American.

And the entitlement and welfare programs also.

*The tax accountants at all companies will find any number of ways to hide profit from taxation.

No it wouldn't. If you actually eliminated the loop holes and, effectively, raised corporate profit tax rates...there will be less profit to tax*. Which will lead to less (not more) tax revenue. I can almost guarantee this.

If you understand that the more you tax something, the less of it you'll get and the more you subsidize something, the more of it you'll get, the things you see happening will make more sense.

And the entitlement and welfare programs also.

*The tax accountants at all companies will find any number of ways to hide profit from taxation.

There'll be less for sure, but these companies have huge and growing wealth, by getting them to pay more in taxes they still will too.

WalMart pays almost 35% taxes and it&s doing just fine.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I don't think corporations should be allowed to keep any profits... what do they need them for anyway??? ... Every dime they bring in over the cost of doing business should be given to the government.
Same goes for people... nobody should be allowed to keep more than, say, $40,000 per year in pay or any other source of income. ANY person making more than that should have to give everything over 40k to the government. All those "impoverished" people manage to live on much less than that, and why should anyone else be better off than them?? ... It's only fair.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

The last 30 years of history and how the poor in the US have NOT been helped despite letting the rich and corporations keep more money (and giving some of them free money). The fact that the countries with the lowest poverty level in the world are the countries with the highest level of social assistance. That's what.

The last 30 years of history and how the poor in the US have NOT been helped despite letting the rich and corporations keep more money (and giving some of them free money). The fact that the countries with the lowest poverty level in the world are the countries with the highest level of social assistance. That's what.

The last 30 years of history and how the poor in the US have NOT been helped despite letting the rich and corporations keep more money (and giving some of them free money). The fact that the countries with the lowest poverty level in the world are the countries with the highest level of social assistance. That's what.

The poor have been helped. What you and I call poor are not really that bad off. Nations that have truly poor people look at our poor and wish they were that well off. Talk about being out of touch with reality. In a nation this size there are those that slip through the cracks. Yes it does happen and yes, it is heart breaking. But there is no way to ensure that this will never happen, just like there is no way to ensure that people will not cheat the systems that are there to help such a person who actually needs it.

But it is more fun to pretend that those who disagree with you ares heartless and cruel people who salivate at the opportunity to starve entire families to death. right? \

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

There is just as much poverty now as there was in the US before Reagan. That's how. I'm not talking about a changing definition of poverty. I'm talking about the fact that there are just as many homeless as there were before. There are just as many jobless head-of-households as there were before, and those people are struggling to put food on their table and clothe their kids just as much as they were before.

There is just as much poverty now as there was in the US before Reagan. That's how. I'm not talking about a changing definition of poverty. I'm talking about the fact that there are just as many homeless as there were before. There are just as many jobless head-of-households as there were before, and those people are struggling to put food on their table and clothe their kids just as much as they were before.

It's not from lack of trying. We have 50 years or so of social engineering and little to show for it. How's that different than any other country? Europe has a larger social safety net and higher unemployment especially among the young. Should we model them?

The first question probably should be if this statement is based on a consistent, objectively measurable definition of poverty across all areas. My guess is it's not but, rather, probably based on self-reported government statistics that vary in each country.

A good example of this is infant mortality. The US takes a lot of grief from the left for this...but it turns out that the US is much more strict in how they measure and report this than other countries which makes the numbers look higher.

The first question probably should be if this statement is based on a consistent, objectively measurable definition of poverty across all areas. My guess is it's not but, rather, probably based on self-reported government statistics that vary in each country.

Have you been to Europe, MJ? Seriously. Have you been to a social democracy? Ever?

Quote:

A good example of this is infant mortality. The US takes a lot of grief from the left for this...but it turns out that the US is much more strict in how they measure and report this than other countries which makes the numbers look higher.

I'm interested in this. Have you got a link? Preferably not one by a self-proclaimed "conservative think-tank". Thanks.

I trust what you say might be true to some extent, but to an extent like maybe 10% difference. Show me how this is not the case.

Have you been to Europe, MJ? Seriously. Have you been to a social democracy? Ever?

Is this your attempt at mis-direction from dealing with a perfectly reasonable, logical and sensible question: Are the claims of "no poverty" based on the same, objective measure for every area where this claim is made?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I'm interested in this. Have you got a link? Preferably not one by a self-proclaimed "conservative think-tank". Thanks.

I trust what you say might be true to some extent, but to an extent like maybe 10% difference. Show me how this is not the case.

I don't have a link handy and don't have the time at the moment to Google it. But I've read this multiple times. Basically the US declares a live birth at an earlier point in time...basically as soon as the baby exits the womb...no matter how premature, and even if there are very slight signs of life. Then, if this baby dies it is counted as a live infant death.

Many other (developed) countries have a different standard where pre-mature that die are not counted in the same statistic...or a baby that dies within several days are not counted.

I have no idea how much of a difference this would make in the overall statistics. It would be impossible to know unless you were counting all of this and looking at how different the statistics look. But I can say this the US infant mortality rate is around 5 or 6 per 1000 live births compared to the best in the world which is about 2 or 3 per thousand live births.

However, the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries, and is based on how they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.

Quote:

The exclusion of any risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.

Quote:

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn.

The whole point of this is if you are trying to compare "poverty rates" (or any other statistic) among regions or countries, you need to be sure you're measuring it the same way in all areas. I'm not confident this is happening.

This might give you some perspective on what I'm talking about> Just one example:

Quote:

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

I'm not a statistician or demographer, but if I were trying to create an objective measure of poverty I would start with some things like:

- earned income equal to or higher than personal spending
- ability to afford from self-earned income (i.e., without charitable or government assistance) enough food to satisfy basic housing, clothing and nutritional needs

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean they are actually spending their money well, it merely means that they could afford to have the things they need from their income. For example there might be some who don't appear to be able to afford food, clothes, housing, etc. but have XBoxes, cell phones and iPods. There's soda and chips in the house but not good, nutritional food. Like that.

This issue of poverty is much more complicated with many facets and many causes (some external, some internal) than many seem to realize. Comparisons are especially difficult. All of this is made much more difficult by the sloppiness and looseness with which this subject is discussed in the media and political realms.

Well, try Denmark, for one. Not exactly zero violent crime, but less than half what the US has.

So you're retracting your previous statement ?

While I've never been to Denmark, I have been to more western European countries than not... I see the same poverty in their cities that I do in any U.S. city. They have the same dangerous neighborhoods to avoid that U.S. cities do. In practice, I fail to see any truth in your statement of zero poverty or crime.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

While I've never been to Denmark, I have been to more western European countries than not... I see the same poverty in their cities that I do in any U.S. city. They have the same dangerous neighborhoods to avoid that U.S. cities do. In practice, I fail to see any truth in your statement of zero poverty or crime.

You must have been to places I haven't.

I've never seen anything remotely close to what I saw in the US.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Me neither. I've lived in LA and New York and traveled around all over the country, including the South and Midwest. I've also been to a dozen countries in Europe, and not just the "tourist spots". I've never seen as much homelessness as I've seen in the US. I've never seen soup kitchen lines around the block anywhere in Europe.

I think people in the US are really living in denial about American poverty. It's the innocent monkey syndrome. See no poverty, hear no poverty, speak no poverty. And then they blame the factual statistics (that can be observed if they simply look around) on reporting.

Nice try. You're the one who says we can't use the UN data; we can't use WHO data; we can't use internationally accepted standards like GINI. In response to that we're just saying look around.

Nice try. I haven't said any such thing. I merely suggested caution when using statistics that appear to be reporting the same things (because they use the same words) but may in fact be reporting different things or reporting the same things differently. A wise person would try to be aware of these differences and realize when they are comparing apples and oranges.

This is not at all the same as what you just said.

The statistics may be valid and useful but may present problems in making direct comparisons.